Pope Francis & Child Abusers

The Catholic Church has long been plagued by sickening scandals involving priests abusing children. And there is reportedly another scandal coming — this one of the pope’s own making.

Two people with direct ties to the Vatican tell me that Pope Francis, following the advice of his clubby group of allies in the curia, is pressing to undo the reforms that were instituted by his predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI in handling the cases of abuser priests. Francis is pushing ahead with this plan even though the curial officials and cardinals who favor it have already brought more scandal to his papacy by urging him toward lenient treatment of abusers.

It has to do with something as seemingly dry as curial reform. But Dougherty contends that what’s really going on is Francis is protecting friends and punishing enemies — and using something as critically important as cleaning up the Church’s handling of abuser priests to do it. More:

Rumors of this reform have been circulating in Rome for months. And not happily. Pope Francis and his cardinal allies have been known to interfere with CDF’s judgments on abuse cases. This intervention has become so endemic to the system that cases of priestly abuse in Rome are now known to have two sets of distinctions. The first is guilty or innocent. The second is “with cardinal friends” or “without cardinal friends.”

And indeed, Pope Francis is apparently pressing ahead with his reversion of abuse practices even though the cardinals who are favorable to this reform of reform have already brought him trouble because of their friends.

Consider the case of Fr. Mauro Inzoli. Inzoli lived in a flamboyant fashion and had such a taste for flashy cars that he earned the nickname “Don Mercedes.” He was also accused of molesting children. He allegedly abused minors in the confessional. He even went so far as to teach children that sexual contact with him was legitimated by scripture and their faith. When his case reached CDF, he was found guilty. And in 2012, under the papacy of Pope Benedict, Inzoli was defrocked.

But Don Mercedes was “with cardinal friends,” we have learned. Cardinal Coccopalmerio and Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto, now dean of the Roman Rota, both intervened on behalf of Inzoli, and Pope Francis returned him to the priestly state in 2014, inviting him to a “a life of humility and prayer.” These strictures seem not to have troubled Inzoli too much. In January 2015, Don Mercedes participated in a conference on the family in Lombardy.

This summer, civil authorities finished their own trial of Inzoli, convicting him of eight offenses. Another 15 lay beyond the statute of limitations. The Italian press hammered the Vatican, specifically the CDF, for not sharing the information they had found in their canonical trial with civil authorities. Of course, the pope himself could have allowed the CDF to share this information with civil authorities if he so desired.

On Oct. 2, a Chilean news channel brought to light a May 6 recording of Pope Francis defending Bishop Juan Barros, who was recently assigned to Osorno, Chile, despite allegations that the new bishop covered up clergy sex abuse by a priest in the 1980s and 1990s.

Though evidence of the priest’s abuse was verified by Chile’s judicial court, statute of limitations allowed Fr. Fernando Karadima to dodge prosecution. When a separate Vatican investigation found the priest guilty of abuse, he was condemned in 2011 to a life of prayer and penance in a convent outside of Santiago.

“[The diocese] lost its independence once it let its head be filled with what politicians say, who are judging a bishop without any evidence, even after 20 years as bishop,” Francis said in the May 6 recording, before a group of Chilean Catholics in Rome who asked the pope to send a message to those in Osorno disappointed by the arrival of Barros. “Think with your heads and do not be led by the noses by the lefties who orchestrated this whole thing,” he said in Spanish, as translated by NCR.

Though Barros was never tried for covering up Karadima’s abuse, testimonial evidence has suggested Barros destroyed incriminating correspondence, while other victim testimonies claimed Barros was present during the sexual acts. Though Chilean courts uphold the testimonial evidence, Barros has denied the allegations and has never faced a canonical or civil case.

Francis appointed Barros bishop of Osorno in March, meeting stiff resistance by its people, most notably demonstrated by the hundreds of protestors at Barros’ installation Mass March 21. Francis made the appointment despite the objections, which haven’t abated.

In the video from May, Francis said, “The only charges brought against Barros were discredited by the judicial court, so please do not lose serenity,” he continued. “Osorno suffers, yes, but for being foolish, because they do not open their hearts to what God says, and instead get carried away by all this silliness that everyone speaks of.”

“To what God says.” Hey, God has forgiven, you ungrateful people of Osorno, so why can’t you? Besides, I’m the Pope. Who are you to question?

As ever with church leaders who talk about reform, don’t listen to what they say, but rather watch what they do.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 86 comments

86 Responses to Pope Francis & Child Abusers

“Law was not put out to pasture. He was given a prestige appointment in Rome and only after it was clear to JPII that he was probably going to be lynched by the faithful if someone didn’t get him out of Boston. (Law, by the way, was ordained in Mississippi and as a young priest had an admirable and courageous record on civil rights.)”

That is getting put out to pasture in a Catholic context. All Cardinals have titular churches in Rome-whether they are also Archbishops or not. Getting removed from a See as a reigning Cardinal Archbishop and merely allowed to retain your titular church in Rome is a serious demotion. Maybe he should have been more seriously punished but he always struck me as someone who simply couldn’t handle the gross truth he was confronted with rather than a malicious enabler. That is still his fault no doubt as if you are a reigning bishop you need to be able to deal with things and not just hope it goes away.

[NFR: Same with John Paul. Cardinal Schoenborn has spoken about how hard he had to fight to get JP2 to take seriously the fact that Schoenborn’s predecessor in Vienna, Cardinal H.H. Groer, had been a serial molester. It wasn’t that JP2 was consciously indifferent to molestation; it was that his cognitive dissonance in this matter was overwhelming. He could not accept that a cardinal archbishop was capable of such evil deeds. If you live long enough, you will see this kind of cognitive dissonance at work in families, in work places, etc. It’s extremely destructive. A friend of mine worked for a company led by a man who was slipping into mental illness, and who was causing growing losses to the business. But it was a large, family-owned firm, one not responsible to shareholders — and the CEO was a strong patriarch type. No family members in a position to do something about it would, because (in my friend’s telling) to do so would require them to face up to the fact that something is really very wrong with Grandpa, and with the family system that allows the kind of crazy things that Grandpa is doing to carry on. It was easier to allow parts of the business to wither or to be wrecked than to confront the serious problems embedded in the culture of the organization and the family that ran it. I am pretty sure Grandpa must be dead by now, but my friend eventually went on to work for some other company, and I don’t know what finally happened to the troubled firm. Indeed, on a vastly smaller scale, if you read “Little Way” you’ll know that my sister Ruthie and her husband never once talked about the possibility that she would die, even though she lived for 19 months with Stage Four cancer, and was clearly on her last legs when she had the hemorrhage that killed her. It turned out that all the evidence in the world — not least the evidence of the fact that she had wasted down to a near-wraith — could compel her to face in a serious way her own mortality, and to make plans for it. One of my nieces told me last year that she and her sisters honestly did not think their mother was going to die — this, because they didn’t want to see it, and their parents didn’t want to make them see it. Five years on, having dealt with the serious problems left behind by their mother’s unwillingness to face facts, and help the kids to face facts, my niece said she has learned a hard life lesson about the cost of denial. — RD]

In reality the structure and beliefs of the Catholic Church have not caused the abuse scandal. The bishops’ typical actions: blaming the accuser, protecting the insider, treating the whole thing as a matter of paperwork and beaurocracy are the normal responses for every institution that I have seen. People simply don’t know how to react in this situation so they try to maintain the appearance of normalcy, and victims suffer.

The Church becomes a place where abuse happens because abusers go to where the potential victims are and for quite a while ‘Priest’ was a good way to get close to potential victims because of other people’s innocence (by our contemporary standards). Abusers also go to schools, coach sports teams and perhaps become involved in charity involving children. Child sexual abuse is widespread in our society and the Church abuse is simply the tip of the iceberg peeking above the waves. So it’s a mistake to think that abuse is only something that is special to the Church (and the boy scouts) – these are simply the cases that we hear about.

***Nothing in this post is intended to minimize the abuse problem in the Church***

It is in this way that mandatory celibacy does the most damage, I believe. Catholic priests are not celibate. Not all the time. Most of them are celibate most of the time, which is not quite the same thing, and the institution forces them to pretend to something that just plain is not so.

Of course Latin-rite Catholic priests are celibate all the time, unless they have received a dispensation, because “celibacy” means “not being married.” Unless Latin-rite priests have received a dispensation to be married (e.g., married Anglican clergy who convert and want to become Catholic clergy), they are not free to marry.

The question is, rather, whether or not they are chaste all the time, which is a different (but related) issue.

“The brutal truth is that the lifetime celibacy requirement causes most “normal” men to not consider the priesthood. So, you wind up with a lot of guys who are not normal, and in fact, from my experience, downright weird. This is the elephant in the room that the Vatican refuses to address.”

You need to combine this with the reality that the diocesan priesthood in much of the First World has not been a prestige profession for several decades – in the US, one might approximately date this to the postwar boom break-up of the former Catholic social and professional ghettoes, which break-up became a done deal by the 1960s. It’s around this time that American Catholic parents would become more concerned than delighted at the prospect of their children taking vows, as it were. The orders that were considered more “intellectual” (that is, having a corporate reputation for encouraging intrepid study) – Jesuits, Dominicans and Benedictines coming first to mind – may have had a slightly longer lag in experiencing this decline in prestige.

I see no way around that, from a human nature perspective. Not at least a quick enough way for all individuals to be as effective in these matters as they would ideally be.

From an institutional perspective and coming from my own background in which I was mercifully spared such familial failings (in that particular matter at least) to me it seems the best way to really preserve the institution would be to, once proven beyond doubt, cashier the offender in no uncertain terms and actions. It shows power inside and that you mean business to the outside. I get that mercy needs to be shown even to monsters, but being kindly to an old pervert and appearing to try to hush it up gets you nothing. It seems merciful enough that a sodomitical cleric can no longer be executed is mercy enough.

In the funeral business I see a weird mix of both, but actually see a lot more people who can face their mortality, even among the ones who die well before the years when people are most likely to expect death to come. Someone who has end stage cancer and just can’t bring themselves to admit it’s over is something I haven’t seen, yet at least.

With all the dissembling and corruption, with its Dons in Italy at that, you would think it was “La Cosa Nostra” – Our Thing.

I will say that our own experiences, quite outside the Catholic Church, have been that nothing has been so destructive to Christin faith as churches. That’s not simply ironic, it is tragic, that they are enemy-occupied territory.

Re: “All Cardinals have titular churches in Rome-whether they are also Archbishops or not. Getting removed from a See as a reigning Cardinal Archbishop and merely allowed to retain your titular church in Rome is a serious demotion.”

Cardinal Law’s is Santa Susanna (since 1921 the Catholic parish in Rome for the American community there), so to make him Archpriest of Santa Maria Maggiore wasn’t to relegate him to his titular church – although I gather that the position of “Archpriest” of the major roman basilicas is something of a sinecure.

I call BS on the idea that Catholic Priests are using confession-derived gossip against each other. Doesn’t happen, phony.”

Ok. Well, that is a slight twist. I’m saying (rather, I was told directly) they do not confess to each other at all. And the ones that do, do not divulge anything that can tarnish their image for fear it would be used against themselves. And the ones that would be so naive, yes, it would be to their career detriment, certainly.

C’mon, laypeople do the same. Especially if you are a “somebody”. If you are young, or are passing through, or are part of some mammoth parish, maybe not. But even lay leaders and community figures, etc., are not wont to spill the beans in the confessional.

One of the biggest challenges to being faithful to the Church is actually meeting and knowing Priests, sad to say. Not surface crap and pleasantries either. I mean actually a friend. The desire to believe they are perfect helps no one, least of all them.

When your faith triumphs over the brokenness of its members, including priests, that is a good day friend.

Might I add, think about what the consequences of your disbelief would mean vis a vis the scandal? Are you saying these priests were repeatedly, hundreds of times even, confessing to raping children in the confessionals? To no avail? And such acts are said to be driven by a compulsion they cannot escape. Sorry to be so graphic but, were they then endlessly confessing to lusting after children, week in, week out? Do you think the normal ones, the one’s with long-term partners, do you think they confess that to their bishop either, week in and week out? All to no avail and always with no intention (nor power) to reform??

Listen, I don’t know how old you are, but if my comments tweaked you, I am sorry. Knowing these things tweaked me greatly at first, especially when I was discerning a vocation. But like I said, our faith is in the Truth and in God and not in men. Otherwise, we are lost.

I have read a couple of English news reports about this priest – all falsely claimed that this was a case of pedophilia: according to an article in Italian – the victims were all males between the ages of 12 and 16. Whoops -that’s a small detail the reporters failed to mention.
The DSM-5 describes pedophilia as “sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children.” Why is it that some in the Church, after all of the needless torture and suffering, cannot come to terms with the fact that the sex abuse scandal had less to do with pedophilia, but was primarily an issue of gay priests trolling (then molesting) teenage boys.

A question for you, since I don’t know how to send you email directly.

Is a Table of Contents for the Benedict Option book available anywhere? I want to pitch it to my parish book club, and I’d be helped if I could describe the structure and contents more clearly.

Thanks! I’m looking forward to reading the book in March. God bless.

[NFR: Thanks for asking. Here’s the Table of Contents; I’ve bracketed short explanations of what’s in each chapter:

Introduction: The Awakening

Chapter 1: The Great Flood [understanding the present moment]
Chapter 2: The Roots of the Crisis [historical background]
Chapter 3: A Rule for Living [the Rule of St. Benedict and the Norcia monks]
Chapter 4: A New Kind of Christian Politics [i.e., how to be politically engaged]
Chapter 5: A Church for All Seasons [i.e., the kind of church we need to make it through bad times]
Chapter 6: The Idea of a Christian Village [i.e., community]
Chapter 7: Education as Christian Formation [i.e., schools]
Chapter 8: Preparing for Hard Labor [that is, professional life, work, and commerce]
Chapter 9: Eros and the New Christian Counterculture [sex, sexuality]
Chapter 10: Man and the Machine [technology]
Conclusion: The Benedict Decision [in which I sum up, and say it’s not really an option for Christians who want to make it through what’s to come]

Note well that this is a book written for conservative/small-o orthodox Christians from each of the three great branches of the faith: Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. As I make clear in the book, the lessons that each reader takes from the book and applies to his or her own life in family and community will differ depending on which branch of Christianity they’re a part of. I don’t advocate what I consider to be a false ecumenism, but I do advocate that we who profess the Great Tradition create a kind of practical ecumenism-of-the-trenches. — RD]

Dominic1955: You’re right, Law did get a serious demotion. But, it was clearly done reluctantly and without any admission by the Holy See that it was deserved. From time to time one could see him on TV in Rome, in a procession or before the consistory following John Paul’s death actually saying Mass in St. Peter’s. His Italian was excellent, but he always looked like the most depressed person in the world. He’s still alive, though now an archpriest emeritus, but I suspect he is still massively depressed.

[NFR: He deserves to suffer penitentially in this life for what he did. I hope he has asked forgiveness, and is repenting, and that God shows him mercy in the afterlife. But he really ought to be living out his days quietly in a faraway monastery. — RD]

It turned out that all the evidence in the world — not least the evidence of the fact that she had wasted down to a near-wraith — could compel her to face in a serious way her own mortality, and to make plans for it.

This is off-topic to this post, Rod, but this RD combox reply got me remembering something.

I saw a similar dynamic when my aunt, then in her 70s and now gone to her eternal reward, was scheduled to go in for a mastectomy. She survived the cancer and lived into her 90s. What struck me was her reaction to my attempted words of support as she worried herself sick over her upcoming surgery. After repeatedly encouraging her to trust her doctors and go into the hospital hoping for the best — “I’m sure it’ll turn out fine, Auntie” — I was taken aback when she finally said, with anger in her voice, “But what if it doesn’t?”

At which point, knowing she’d been a churchgoing Catholic for 70 years, I said the most hopeful and Christian thing I could think to say: “Well, if it doesn’t go okay, I hope and pray to see you on the other side.” My aunt, whom I loved very much, shot me a How-dare-you-say-something-like-that look and said not a word. Her daughter (my cousin) stayed silent too.

Prior to this I’d been in conversations with fellow active Catholics my age about the phenomenon of Greatest Generation Catholics failing to impart the faith to their Baby Boomer children. This little episode lit up the proverbial lightbulb over my head.

If the Christian faith isn’t about what comes after physical death, it isn’t about anything relevant at all. Why pass it along?

Why has it not been acted upon?
Who, at the higher levels of the hierarchy and curia, is implicated therein?
Why would the mere existence of a homo mafia cause Benedict XVI’s abdication?
Why could he not have removed personnel, as Francis is now doing with respect to priests that disagree with him?
Was there something else there that we have not heard about?

Or, is the idea underlying Francis’s attempt to reintegrate heterosexual couples living in irregular situations, who might well constitute a significant demographic in the West, that such a move would re-virilise the Church?
Is that the way he intends to combat the homosexual influence?
Would married clergy for the whole Church, not just the Greek Catholics and the Ordinariates, be his answer as well?
And even deaconesses, to allow female oversight of the male priests’ activities?

I just finished Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity (“Introduction” definitely a misnomer) and Salt of the Earth – soon to start on others. This man truly owns a gifted mind; a potential “Doctor” perhaps!?

[NFR: In my next book, I call him “the second ‘Benedict’ in the Benedict Option’.” — RD]

The brutal truth is that the lifetime celibacy requirement causes most “normal” men to not consider the priesthood. So, you wind up with a lot of guys who are not normal, and in fact, from my experience, downright weird. This is the elephant in the room that the Vatican refuses to address.

The corollary to this, according to a priest friend of mine, is that since the celebacy requirement cuts the number of men entering the seminary, dioceses are often reluctant to weed out the obviously unfit for fear of further reducing the numbers.

Re: Everyone knows the church has a gay priest problem, that those gay priests caused most of the child abuse, that they cover up for each other, and that Pope Francis is their man.

Scapegoating one demographic is not a productive way of dealing with any serious problem. There were a whole lot of factors that fed into the child abuse outrage. Maybe gay priests had something to do with it (though I think “pederast priests” might be a better description) but there was a lot else going on there too.

Why did the Cardinals pick this man? I’m a non-Christian, and it seems like a terrible mistake. However, he’s a very old man and will probably not have a long papacy. Expect a HUGE battle when it’s time to pick a new pontiff.

Another example of why having a totally celibate clergy is NOT a good idea, and was only introduced during medieval ‘reforms’ of the post-schism Western Church. We in the East have our issues in this regard, but the problem strikes me as systematic in the West. Schisms always reap a bitter harvest.

People always seem to forget that Law was appointed Archpriest of St. Mary Major a year and a half after he had resigned as Archbishop of Boston. I think it was a mistake to ever give him any kind of official job, even if it was one without many real duties, but the common claim that he went directly from Boston to Rome (often with the implication that he did so one step ahead of the law) is factually inaccurate.

The corollary to this, according to a priest friend of mine, is that since the celebacy requirement cuts the number of men entering the seminary, dioceses are often reluctant to weed out the obviously unfit for fear of further reducing the numbers.

I’ve seen this too, up close. It’s ok when this just means that men who really are not equal to the academic part of seminary study are given gentlemen’s C’s….after all, the Cure of Ars would probably be diagnosed as retarded today, and that didn’t get in the way of his holiness.

But character weaknesses, too, which are a much more serious matter, are so often forgiven and covered up lest the priesthood, the diocese, or the Order lose one more (increasingly scarce) candidate. It is no secret that many Catholic priests are gay. Some of these men take the attitude, sometimes openly, that since they are not “married” they are celibate, so all other bets are off.

The inevitable result is the ordination of many men who are in so many way unsuited to their office. No good can come of this, and usually no good does come of it.

The objection that someone raised that the Catholic Church is not prepared to support a man and his six or eight children (Church-approved contraception is mostly ineffective) is all too true. Like most other human beings, we Catholics want to have the cake and eat it.

The Protestant congregations around my part of the world, who are not much more generous financially, are in the process of “solving” this problem by ordaining more and more women, who serve their churches while their husbands have “real” jobs to support their families. There are some interesting numbers suggesting that the Protestant ministry, very much including the Episcopal priesthood, is becoming more and more a women’s occupation.

Cdl Law’s appointment to a sub-Curial position was designed to keep him within Vatican jurisdiction and out of US jurisdiction. While he was not going to be indicted for violation of Massachusetts law (what he did was not criminal under then-applicable law; it would be now), he would have been available for process in civil lawsuits, and removing him to Vatican jurisdiction was apparently designed to cauterize that possibility.

In any event, the appointment did nothing to help the situation of the Church in Boston. It was counterproductive. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have known that. But that was not a consideration.

@Mark writes: “Why did the Cardinals pick this man?” Try to read articles about Pope Francis from a variety of points of view, not just pieces like Dougherty’s or those of others in the grip of Francis Derangement Syndrome. But to answer your question, Pope Francis was elected to shake things up, and to bring a perspective from outside Europe and, in particular, outside the hothouse of the Curia. Now that he is doing what he was elected to do, he is subjected to articles like MBD’s, in which he is accused of everything in the book. Let us always keep in mind that Pope Benedict quit, in a nearly unprecedented act. And since he is still among us, I remain baffled as to why he did so.

Having been on n the inside, there are a number of good candidates, usually studying under orthodox bishops. There are also problematic ones-gays, severely socially awkward, narcissists, etc. studying under everyone.

Protestants ordaining women as hobbyist pastors will just see their sects dwindle as irrelevant arms of religiously veneered SJWism. I see it happening locally already.

For Catholicism, one aid is obvious to me-reforming the permanent diaconate and restoring the Minor Orders and Subdiaconate. We need more clergy, we don’t need to tread dangerously towards heresy with even a whiff of a female clergy nor do we need to massively overhaul the Roman system with a married priesthood. I know lots of solid deacons with valuable secular backgrounds is business who are just used as glorified altar boys and to take communion to nursing homes. The liturgy needs to be fixed (the deacon actually has a much more obviously important role in the TLM and Eastern Rites but I digress) and visiting the sick is certainly important but it remains that talented deacons are underutilized. Following one of their traditional roles, I see putting them in charge of the temporal affairs of large parishes. They have the business background that priests usually don’t, and it frees up the priest for the distinctly priestly duties only they can do.

Subdeacons and Minor Clergy should be utilized for other roles like liturgical functions, catechesis, visiting the sick, etc. This can shore up and remysticalize the liturgy and if implemented correctly, shore up orthodoxy.

“Let us always keep in mind that Pope Benedict quit, in a nearly unprecedented act. And since he is still among us, I remain baffled as to why he did so.”

I feel the same sometimes. I remember reading about him and all the articles would make specific references to his being Pope John Paul II’s “bulldog”, in a pejorative way. However, when I read some of his actual work, I found him very insightful and reasonable. I think he also predicted the consequences of various social changes quite presciently. I know that he didn’t make the decision to retire lightly, so I just have to trust that the outcome of his decision has been guided by the Holy Spirit.

dominic1955: For Catholicism, one aid is obvious to me-reforming the permanent diaconate and restoring the Minor Orders and Subdiaconate. Following one of [deacons’] traditional roles, I see putting them in charge of the temporal affairs of large parishes. They have the business background that priests usually don’t, and it frees up the priest for the distinctly priestly duties only they can do.

Subdeacons and Minor Clergy should be utilized for other roles like liturgical functions, catechesis, visiting the sick, etc. This can shore up and remysticalize the liturgy and if implemented correctly, shore up orthodoxy.

As much as I disagree with dominic on a lot of things, I have to say I could sign off on this. It certainly makes more sense than expecting the priest to be CEO and having umpty-zillion “lay ministries” (and a say that as an EMOHC myself). I also think–and I believe we’ve agreed on this, too–that the whole diaconate training needs to be reformed. It runs almost six years in my diocese and is way overbalanced towards theology and academics. Not that those are bad, but they’re not central to deacons’ functions, and St. Stephen did just fine without such stuff, didn’t he?

Anyway, just a high five and kudos from the other side of the aisle, dominic.

It can safely be said that no one at the Vatican has handled the clergy sex abuse problem as it should have been handled, including Popes John Paul II and Benedict XIV, no matter how much rightwing Francis bashers prefer their style, esp. Ratzinger/Benedict, whom Dougherty even credits with instituting “reform” (by having exclusive jurisdiction turned over to himself at the CDF!). This column is based on little more than anti-Francis gossip, which emanates virtually daily from a group of loudly disgruntled insiders (some now outsiders), who have a friendly following among certain members of the rightwing media, from Sandro Magister in Rome to traditionalist columnists and bloggers around the world. It negatively spins the simple fact that Francis is likely looking at ways to himself reform Vatican protocol with regard to how it deals on an ongoing basis with priests charged with sexual abuse, a move that hardly appears controversial unless you’re among the tiny minority who thinks clergy sex abuse and similar problems should remain indefinitely under the direct authority of theologians whose primary duty is watchdogging “the doctrine of the Faith.”

Beyond these specifics, I find it ironic how clearly unloved this particular Pope is among certain Vatican insiders, especially considering how almost universally beloved a figure he is in the world at large, including among ordinary Catholics.

“As much as I disagree with dominic on a lot of things, I have to say I could sign off on this. It certainly makes more sense than expecting the priest to be CEO and having umpty-zillion “lay ministries” (and a say that as an EMOHC myself).”

We ordain priests primarily to offer the Sacrifice. The parish priest/cure/pastor does have an added responsibility to see that the parish is financially workable but he can oversee and delegate that easily enough. I’ve seen too many pastors burned out by considerations quite frankly secondary or tertiary to their primary vocation.

“I also think–and I believe we’ve agreed on this, too–that the whole diaconate training needs to be reformed. It runs almost six years in my diocese and is way overbalanced towards theology and academics.”

Yep, for how I usually see deacons utilized, the training program had just as well be a month of weekend classes crash course, they’d probably turn out just as well.

That said, the problem is the current systems in place in most diocese make this more of a big deal than it really is, I think because now the diaconate is the beginning of the clerical state instead of tonsure. There should be a distinction in the law about the “clerical state” since the old protections afforded by it are pretty much defunct anyway. The Minor Orders and Diaconate should be clergy, but are all expected to make their living from the World whereas priests and bishops are much more beholden to an Order or diocese.

Not wanting to go too far on a bird walk, deacons should be well instructed in the rudiments of the Faith, and this should be focused on basic orthodoxy. In other words, they need to be absolutely sure what transubstantiation is and the diocesean formators shouldn’t be waistline their time with theological book club type stuff. The priest with the cura animarum should be doing most of the Sunday preaching anyway.

“Not that those are bad, but they’re not central to deacons’ functions, and St. Stephen did just fine without such stuff, didn’t he?”

Well, I wouldn’t rely on stuff like that, certain people have special graces. A deacon formation program should be looking for actively seeking men who have “real world” business experience and if qualified otherwise, slotting them as archdeacons to run parishes on the temporal side and diocesan business. There is plenty of room for less secularly qualified candidates, they should be very well drilled in their proper liturgical role (and in my fantasy, that would be pretty much as it is the n the TLM/Ordinariate) and then encouraged to do ministries based on their talents and temperaments, like prison ministry or soup kitchens or cultivating a local StVdeP chapter. All of them should be given opportunities to foster their spirituality and a lighter obligation to say at least part of the Office should be imposed.

The other grace of this is it puts a properly official Church blessing on things too long relegated to being basically jobs or volunteer work. As a cleric formally ordained to do various functions, it imbues them with a sacrality not present if they are just done.

“Anyway, just a high five and kudos from the other side of the aisle, dominic.”

@a commenter writes: “I know that he didn’t make the decision to retire lightly, so I just have to trust that the outcome of his decision has been guided by the Holy Spirit.” Me too, but the situation we have — a reigning Pope, and another Pope who is in the position of the “king over the water” to whom certain Catholics inside and outside the Vatican maintain allegiance, whether the Pope Emeritus wants them to or not, is not working out too well, IMHO. That’s why I said it was a version writ large of the situation here in NY, where fans of Father George Rutler mounted a vicious campaign against the priest who was unfortunate enough to have been appointed his successor at the Church of Our Saviour. That should not have occurred. I’m sure Father Rutler did not want it to happen. I’m equally sure that Pope Benedict does not want to be used in the way he is being used by opponents of Pope Francis, but he did create the situation that enabled this to happen, and I really don’t understand why he felt it necessary to step down. The only thing that makes sense is that he wanted to avoid what happened in Pope JPII’s last years — having a Pope who was so ill that he could not maintain control. But even now, Pope Benedict seems both mentally and physically in better shape than Pope JPII was in his last years, so (in practical terms) I don’t completely understand his decision.

“Beyond these specifics, I find it ironic how clearly unloved this particular Pope is among certain Vatican insiders, especially considering how almost universally beloved a figure he is in the world at large, including among ordinary Catholics.”

There is another way to look at that, though; I know a non-Catholic guy who approves of Pope Francis…and thinks he’s going to change the rules on marriage w/r gay people. In other words, some people approve of Pope Francis because they believe *he is undermining the Catholic faith*, not because he is reinvigorating the faith and inviting more people.

Perhaps “Vatican insiders” and traditionalist allies are a combo of petty officerholders and Pharisees…or they could – could – be looking to the best interest of the Church w/r preserving tradition, pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the clericalist “reformers”.

I would say it is a combination of both, and St. Paul warned us off being the type that says, “I’m for Bergoglio” or “I’m for Cdl. Burke”, so we must be careful on these pro- or anti- cults of papal personality.